Mike Pattrick <m...@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 14:46 +0100, Eelco Chaudron wrote: >> >> On 29 Nov 2021, at 22:02, Aaron Conole wrote: >> >> > This reverts commit c645550bb249 ("odp-util: Always report >> > ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE for IGMP.") >> > >> > Always forcing a slow path action can result in some over-broad >> > flows which swallow all traffic and force them to userspace, as reported >> > in the thread at >> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2021-September/387706.html >> > and at >> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2021-September/387689.html >> > >> > Revert the ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE return for IGMP specifically. >> > Additionally, remove the userspace wc mask to prevent revalidator from >> > cycling flows. >> > >> > Fixes: c645550bb249 ("odp-util: Always report ODP_FIT_TOO_LITTLE for >> > IGMP.") >> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <acon...@redhat.com> >> > Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> >> >> Thanks Aaron for adding the tests! >> >> Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <echau...@redhat.com> > > Hello Aaron, > > Looks good but I'm having some issues with the "igmp flood for non-snoop > enabled" test. > > I find that it fails for me a small percentage of the time, The > following snippet will reproduce this issue: > > for i in $(seq 1 100); do make check TESTSUITEFLAGS="2379"; if [[ $? > -ne 0 ]]; then echo "Test $i failed"; break; fi; done > > > The diff shows: > > -recirc_id(0),in_port(1),eth(src=aa:55:aa:55:00:01,dst=01:01:00:0c:29:a0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), > actions:100,2 > -recirc_id(0),in_port(2),eth(src=01:01:00:0c:29:a0,dst=aa:55:aa:55:00:01),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), > actions:1 > +recirc_id(0),in_port(2),eth(src=aa:55:aa:55:00:01,dst=01:01:00:0c:29:a0),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), > actions:100,1 > +recirc_id(0),in_port(1),eth(src=01:01:00:0c:29:a0,dst=aa:55:aa:55:00:01),eth_type(0x0800),ipv4(frag=no), > actions:2 > > > And the logs show: >> 2021-12-06T20:32:20.519Z|00053|bridge|INFO|bridge br0: added interface p1 on >> port 2 >> 2021-12-06T20:32:20.519Z|00054|bridge|INFO|bridge br0: added interface p0 on >> port 1 > > > So it seems like the proper port numbers are being assigned, but the > flow seems to have incorrect port numbers. Not sure what's going on > there, but I also found that splitting the the "ovs-vsctl add-port" > invocations into two commands fixed the issue.
That is very strange - I don't see such behavior on the systems I've tested with (x2 on each system): Fedora 35 RHEL8 And the logs are completely baffling (for example, we are using netdev/dummy-receive so it should always have the correct port numbers). Such behavior shouldn't occur, and concerns me. Can you describe your setup? > Cheers, > M > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev mailing list >> d...@openvswitch.org >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev >> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev